Defendant appealed from his conviction for vehicular invasion arguing that the State failed to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not establish he entered the vehicle by force with the intent to take the victim’s property. Defendant also argued that the trial court abused its discretion in using an alternate jury empaneling process and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments by misstating the law of accountability and definition of force. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the verdict was not so unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt where there was evidence that defendant entered and reached into the victim’s vehicle. The appellate court further found that SCR 434 grants the trial court discretion to alter the traditional methods for impaneling juries and that the State did not misstate the law during closing arguments. (HOWSE and COBBS, concurring)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sufficiency of Evidence
Jury Selection